I know I said my "final input", but I wasn't expecting another poster. Considering I'm quite certain the new poster actually read my post, most of what I say directed at him is for his eyes; neither the GM nor anyone else present is obligated to read that portion if they don't have the time for it, though it does provide important perspective and details. Since it's not focusing on the primary goals of the GM I'd also like to make this my last post if possible; I have other things to do and my attention isn't needed here anymore.

[@Vordak]
My decision to use chess as an analogy was strictly in reaction to a statement that was made by BrokenPromise when they brought the game up as part of the debate; I'm well aware that a lot of people do not like long posts here (despite the fact that this is meant to be a writing-focused website) so I attempt to shorten the output of my posts by only deconstructing arguments presented instead of bringing every single idea I have to the table. I'm a master of the details and unfortunately it's becoming clear to me that a lot of people on this site don't really appreciate details (read: you can't get every possible detail of a debate across in a short post); I happen to debate with even more detail in person. I'm also the type to put their own argument through deconstruction [i]before[/i] posting it (I'm my own biggest critic; I'm not the biased type), not only to predict the other side's reaction but also to make sure I don't miss details, so getting brushed off by people who don't even read (thoroughly) really does make me disappointed in their character. This is a general statement however; not directed at any one person on the site.

To be completely honest with you, that analogy of thinking it like a debate is [i]exactly[/i] the sort of wording I'd have used (and therefore I won't be building on what you said because you've already expressed my view on it); I engage in debates all the time and I do so without it ever turning into a cockfight. I approach everything, from my philosophy discussions all the way to my free-form duels and general strategy talks, in the same way. I didn't just come across as passionate in my debating here because of the subject matter; I'm like this when I debate period. This debate analogy you used is exactly what I was getting at with parts of my posts in this thread so far, and is the root meaning behind the following quote:

[quote=Shoryu Magami]The exact same comparison exists between role-playing a battle-orientated piece of writing in a free-form style when compared to RPG mechanics; free-form role-play is the chess in comparison to its checkers. This is why the more of these mechanics you implement the more dumbed down (read: unrealistic) a fight becomes; neither chess nor checkers actually offer a perfect representation of true combat or strategy and one of them is simply a bit deeper than the other one. [b]Chess only goes so far as a simulation of warfare, and when you take unpredictability and supernatural powers into the equation it becomes even less able to keep up.[/b][/quote]
If checkers is the dumbed down version of chess, then chess is the dumbed down version of debating. This was the [i]exact[/i] conclusion I was reaching with my posts before things seemingly got a little too personal; I wanted to avoid going into it needlessly when the details of free-form role-play wasn't the focus of this thread, especially since the other side is clearly not listening. I consider debating (and mind games; psychological warfare) to be the medium of which neither checkers nor chess can keep up with in terms of effectively illustrating strategy; you cannot debate (nor use tactics rooted in reality; a staple of good writing even in a superpower battle) in a setting where dice and statistics are an unquestioned god. You've essentially said [i]exactly[/i] what I would've (minus the mention about using basic hand-to-hand fighting as a starting point for free-form role-play, since I never needed to do that to grasp higher level free-form role-play) had I allowed my post length to get any longer than it already was. Apparently I was expecting too much to think that the complete meaning behind that quote I just listed would've been understood.

You're also right in assuming that I believe that good collaboration and sportsmanship prevent the competitive problems of free-form from getting out of hand; they keep the competitive problems of it [i]and[/i] Tabletop mechanics under check, so this debate should never (and on my end, was never) about which of these was superior on a competitive level (a debate I could go into but it's not the purpose of this thread and is technically spam due to that); it was a debate about my preference for why one results in better writing quality than the other. The GM wanted multiple perspectives brought to the table, so I gave it.

You joined this discussion for the same reason I invested more time into it than I initially did; I originally came to this thread because I wanted to see the GM's idea come to fruition and not because I wanted to take part in it myself. This isn't the first thread I've joined under the assumption that the role-play probably wasn't for me and I simply wanted to see it move forward anyway. Once other people expressed interest I thought my work was done... then the bashing commenced. I would've looked away, but the argument was entirely biased and some of the passive aggressive snark made it all the more intolerable.

[@BrokenPromise]
Referring to my post as a "rant", when it was actually a well thought out counterargument (one which apparently Vordak appreciated and respected given his reaction to it) to everything you'd been throwing at me, is not a very sincere way to apologize. If you'd simply said you weren't planning on reading it then that would be your call because it was there for people who appreciated it, but referring to it as a "rant" is disrespectful and disrespecting or talking down to me is the easiest way for me to not take anything a person says seriously.

As for giving you a "TL:DR" (I've only just now looked this up to find out what it means; I dislike all this urban slang) answer to your question, I'll keep it simple. In a previous post I did mention that the match-up you described sounded like bad groundwork from the beginning, but I actually think I probably [i]could[/i] balance it out; it largely depends on the full extent of what that chi wielder is creatively capable of doing with that ability and what the "sausage" you referred to had managed to obtain so far through its power; both things that could be discussed out before a duel took place if good groundwork was needed. Without the details about both characters there's not much else I can input here.

I've never actually lost a free-form role-play duel (that wasn't scripted by me that way due to me GMing an antagonist who needed to lose for the plot to continue, which I do all the time) before, but in all of my time free-form duelling I have usually played the "underdog" of sorts. I've fought against people who had a ridiculous combination of several overpowered characters from various anime, going up against them with one of my OCs who had a relatively contained but versatile skill set, and still won simply because I'm able to be creative and outwit the opponent. This detail was emphasized in the information I gave the GM in my previous post that was put into a "Hider" for the sake of making my post easier on the eyes; I suspect that information simply wasn't read.

In my opinion, if the groundwork is good, how you use the powers available is more important than what your powers are, which is why in my last post I mentioned I've never power gamed before. Say, for example, your character's ability is electricity manipulation; if you're creative this doesn't just mean shooting blasts of lightning at people, there's a damn lot people can do with electricity (especially when electromagnetism is directly connected to it, to name one of a few things). I also happen to use competitive free-form role-playing with some of my friends and associates as a way of testing the water with new characters or abilities I've created; a "simulation" if you will. These simulation-based competitions would never have worked realistically if we weren't [i]actively trying to beat each other[/i].

On the other hand, you're making me consider writing up an FAQ about good free-form role-play groundwork, if my time ever frees up...